> Once you have less skin in the game, it is easier to make bad decisions.
I beg to differ. I think _this_ article is incorrect because it assumes that above is true. The money that you raised from venture capital is literally oxygen for your company. It is _your_ lifeline as much as it is the VC's skin.
This means each part has 5 things in it and there are 7 such parts which is fundamentally irreconcilable with the modulus operator. I think it is because of the limitation of the modulus operator which only works for integer values. So what you’re saying makes sense with real numbers BUT the context changes when you’re working with integers. So, with integer values it is 5 groups of 7 but 7 groups of 5 with real numbers
> But Rails doesn't scale so what are we even doing
This without context is meaningless. What is the cost in $$ and engineering time to scale to that level? Would a native image be able to scale to the same level at half the total cost?
You seem to imply that you know better than the CEO if Rails is a good fit both from product and cost perspective. Unless you are the CFO or have inside information I will be skeptical of the idea that I - an outsider of Shopify - would know better than them what would works best for them in terms of tech stack and costs savings.
Even if I would be a consultant for them I will first try to understand the current situation and then imply a native image will have half the total cost is a good solution. What if reducing the hosting costs will actually damage their speed of pivoting and adapting to changes?
That's funny, my first thought was that it's a reference to Star Trek, where Q is an omnipotent and annoying know-it-all entity (which is what I would expect from an AI).
I suppose “super low latency” is behaviour, in the sense that “a large enough quantitative difference is a qualitative difference”. If you rely on the perf and only S3 provides that, then you effectively are locked into S3 implementation
Building the same product with a different codebase is virtually guaranteed to be a disaster. This is the famous "second system effect."
Sometimes the original coders are the only people who know, not only how the software works, but even what it does. Unknown uses include features discovered by users but unknown to the makers, and one-off hacks created to serve a valuable customer.
> Building the same product with a different codebase is virtually guaranteed to be a disaster.
There is no point in going back and forth over this unless you have a real world example.
> This is the famous "second system effect."
[1] I believe you've misunderstood this effect. My understanding is that in the "second system effect", the succeeding system is not the "same" as the original
Sure, but deviation from a known path introduces more risk. Every different technical choice at the very least may introduce unforeseen incompatibilities with previous "knowns".
I beg to differ. I think _this_ article is incorrect because it assumes that above is true. The money that you raised from venture capital is literally oxygen for your company. It is _your_ lifeline as much as it is the VC's skin.